In this 2254, petitioner\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn\u2019t object that the search warrant was not personally served on him wasn\u2019t a constitutional requirement. Also barred by Stone. Witkowski v. Bennett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126262 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel is denied for failing to show that a motion to suppress would have been granted or the outcome different. United States v. Aside, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125901 (D. Nev. July 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state parole search of defendant\u2019s cell phone was justified by reasonable suspicion under special needs. United States v. Watson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125812 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was given the chance to elaborate in opposition to the government\u2019s claim of abandonment, but he remained silent. Abandonment found. United States v. P\u00e9rez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126505 (D.P.R. June 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this 2254, petitioner\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn\u2019t object that the search warrant was not personally served on him wasn\u2019t a constitutional requirement. Also barred by Stone. Witkowski v. Bennett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126262 … Continue reading